Spinal Cord Stimulation for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Current Pain and Headache Reports Pub Date : 2025-01-02 DOI:10.1007/s11916-024-01336-1
Alan D Kaye, Joseph R Archer, Shivam Shah, Coplen D Johnson, Lexa R Herron, Amy E Brouillette, Catherine J Armstrong, Peyton Moore, Shahab Ahmadzadeh, Sahar Shekoohi, Azem A Chami
{"title":"Spinal Cord Stimulation for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Alan D Kaye, Joseph R Archer, Shivam Shah, Coplen D Johnson, Lexa R Herron, Amy E Brouillette, Catherine J Armstrong, Peyton Moore, Shahab Ahmadzadeh, Sahar Shekoohi, Azem A Chami","doi":"10.1007/s11916-024-01336-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and debilitating condition affecting millions worldwide. Among emerging interventions, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has gained attention as a potential alternative for managing chronic LBP, particularly when alternative approaches fail to provide adequate relief.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>This systematic review focuses on both residual pain levels and ability to perform daily tasks after treatment with SCS. The present investigation includes a systematic search for studies from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane, and Embase. Sources were eligible for inclusion in the review if they were published from 2010 to present (May 1, 2024). 8 studies involving a total of 1,172 patients were evaluated. This systematic review demonstrated that SCS is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for both short and long-term pain relief, functionality, psychological well-being, and opioid dependency. Furthermore, newer SCS approaches, such as high frequency (HF), differential target multiplexed (DTM), and multiphase SCS all demonstrated improved efficacy over traditional SCS for pain relief and functionality scores. Adverse event rates for all trials were low and represent the safety of SCS treatments. The present investigation provides insight into the capabilities of both traditional SCS and HF SCS, DTM SCS, and multiphase SCS as compared to baseline pain and functionality as well as conventional medical management (CMM). This review grants physicians a broader picture of the applicability of SCS, its safety profile, and the opportunities it offers for pain reduction and functionality over CMM.</p>","PeriodicalId":50602,"journal":{"name":"Current Pain and Headache Reports","volume":"29 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Pain and Headache Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-024-01336-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and debilitating condition affecting millions worldwide. Among emerging interventions, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has gained attention as a potential alternative for managing chronic LBP, particularly when alternative approaches fail to provide adequate relief.

Recent findings: This systematic review focuses on both residual pain levels and ability to perform daily tasks after treatment with SCS. The present investigation includes a systematic search for studies from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane, and Embase. Sources were eligible for inclusion in the review if they were published from 2010 to present (May 1, 2024). 8 studies involving a total of 1,172 patients were evaluated. This systematic review demonstrated that SCS is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for both short and long-term pain relief, functionality, psychological well-being, and opioid dependency. Furthermore, newer SCS approaches, such as high frequency (HF), differential target multiplexed (DTM), and multiphase SCS all demonstrated improved efficacy over traditional SCS for pain relief and functionality scores. Adverse event rates for all trials were low and represent the safety of SCS treatments. The present investigation provides insight into the capabilities of both traditional SCS and HF SCS, DTM SCS, and multiphase SCS as compared to baseline pain and functionality as well as conventional medical management (CMM). This review grants physicians a broader picture of the applicability of SCS, its safety profile, and the opportunities it offers for pain reduction and functionality over CMM.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脊髓刺激治疗腰背痛:系统性综述。
回顾的目的:慢性腰痛(LBP)是一种普遍和衰弱的疾病,影响着全世界数百万人。在新兴的干预措施中,脊髓刺激(SCS)作为一种潜在的治疗慢性LBP的替代方法受到了关注,特别是当其他方法不能提供足够的缓解时。最近的发现:这篇系统综述的重点是在SCS治疗后的残余疼痛水平和执行日常任务的能力。目前的调查包括对PubMed、谷歌Scholar、Cochrane和Embase的研究进行系统搜索。来源如果发表于2010年至今(2024年5月1日),则有资格纳入综述。共评估了8项研究,涉及1172名患者。本系统综述表明,SCS在短期和长期疼痛缓解、功能、心理健康和阿片类药物依赖方面优于传统医学管理(CMM)。此外,新的SCS方法,如高频(HF)、差分靶点复用(DTM)和多相SCS,在疼痛缓解和功能评分方面都比传统SCS有更好的疗效。所有试验的不良事件发生率都很低,代表了SCS治疗的安全性。目前的研究提供了传统SCS和HF SCS, DTM SCS和多相SCS与基线疼痛和功能以及传统医疗管理(CMM)相比的能力。这篇综述使医生对SCS的适用性、安全性以及它在缓解疼痛和功能上优于CMM的机会有了更广泛的了解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Current Pain and Headache Reports
Current Pain and Headache Reports CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.70%
发文量
91
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal aims to review the most important, recently published clinical findings regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and management of pain and headache. By providing clear, insightful, balanced contributions by international experts, the journal intends to serve all those involved in the care and prevention of pain and headache. We accomplish this aim by appointing international authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as anesthetic techniques in pain management, cluster headache, neuropathic pain, and migraine. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. An international Editorial Board reviews the annual table of contents, suggests articles of special interest to their country/region, and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research. Commentaries from well-known figures in the field are also provided.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of Steroid Facet Joint Injections for Axial Spinal Pain and Post Radiofrequency Ablation Neuritis: A Systematic Review. Efficacy of Suprainguinal Fascia Iliaca Block for Pain Management in Hip Surgeries: A Narrative Review. Psychological Support for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review on the Validity of a Growing Remote Approach. An Overview of Prosopagnosia as a Symptom of Migraine: A Literature Review. Allodynia: A Review Article.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1